SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
72–383 PS
2001
THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S CAPACITY BENCHMARKS
(107–13)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
AVIATION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
APRIL 25, 2001
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
STEPHEN HORN, California
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOHN L. MICA, Florida
JACK QUINN, New York
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
SUE W. KELLY, New York
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia
MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois
HENRY E, BROWN, Jr., South Carolina
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
SAM GRAVES, Missouri
C.L. (BUTCH) OTTER, Idaho
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
CORRINE BROWN, Florida
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
BOB FILNER, California
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
MAX SANDLIN, Texas
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI, Maine
MARION BERRY, Arkansas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
BRAD CARSON, Oklahoma
JIM MATHESON, Utah
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
RICK LARSEN, Washington
(ii)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AVIATION
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOHN L. MICA, Florida, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
STEPHEN HORN, California
JACK QUINN, New York
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
SUE W. KELLY, New York
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana, Vice Chairman
JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana
SAM GRAVES, Missouri
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
BUD SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
DON YOUNG, Alaska
(Ex Officio)
WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI, Maine
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
CORRINE BROWN, Florida
JUANITA MILLENDER-McDONALD, California
MAX SANDLIN, Texas
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
BRAD CARSON, Oklahoma
JIM MATHESON, Utah
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
TESTIMONY
Coyne, Hon. James K., President, National Air Transportation Association
Garvey, Hon. Jane F., Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration
Kinton, Thomas J., Director of Aviation, Massachusetts Port Authority
Plavin, David Z., President, Airports Council International-North America, and on behalf of the American Association of Airport Executives
Ryan, Jack R., Acting Senior Vice President, Aviation Safety and Operations, Air Transport Association of America
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois
Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Coyne, Hon. James K
Garvey, Hon. Jane F
Kinton, Thomas J
Plavin, David Z
Ryan, Jack R
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
Airport Capacity Benchmark Report 2001, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation
THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION'S CAPACITY BENCHMARKS
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2001
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation, Washington, D. C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m. in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John L. Mica [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. MICA. I would like to call this hearing of the House Transportation Subcommittee on Aviation to order. We will proceed with the order of business today.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This afternoon on our hearing relating to FAA capacity benchmarks the order of business will be first opening statements.
I will begin the proceedings with my opening statement and then recognize our ranking member, Mr. Lipinski and other Members.
Today's hearing will provide us with our first look at the Federal Aviation Agency's much anticipated runway capacity benchmarks, which were released this morning. I am not sure if other Members have seen this, but I want to make certain that we have copies available for everyone.
Unfortunately, the airport capacity benchmark report that we received today confirms some of our worst suspicions and acknowledges, in fact, what most air travelers have already experienced. Many of our major airports are at or near capacity and measures to deal with the current and looming crisis must be instituted.
Today's report in fact will send chills down the spine of even our most seasoned air travelers because we find that we have delays at seven of our nation's top airports and we find that those delays may become even worse over the next ten years.
Last year was already the worst on record for delays. Airlines responded by adding a few minutes to their scheduled flight times to improve their on-time performance and help manage passenger expectations. But unfortunately, that is not an efficient solution to deal with this growing crisis.
The lack of runway capacity at our major airports is one of the main culprits in creating air traffic delays. According to FAA data, 27 major airports in the U.S. are seriously congested. During the first nine months of 2000 alone, one in every four flights was delayed, canceled or diverted, affecting 119 million passengers.
Official analysis indicates that delays in 2000 cost the airlines an estimated $6.5 billion, up from $5.4 billion in 1999. Due to the complex schedules and extensive hub and spoke operations, a few minutes of delay at one airport can create gridlock across our entire aviation system with dramatic negative impacts on our economy.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Over-capacity problems at even one major airport can spell schedule disasters nationwide. A weather or labor slowdown can further grind the system to a halt, as we have seen.
As we experienced last summer, record delays at La Guardia tied up our air traffic control system and created traffic snarls at almost every major airport. According to FAA data, the lack of runway capacity at our major airports is one of the main culprits in creating air traffic delays.
Again, according to FAA data, 27 major airports in the U.S. are considered seriously congested. If improvements are not made, that number will go to 31 by the year 2007. The last ten years, while air traffic has increased 37 percent, airport runway capacity has increased only by one percent. Only six of our nation's largest airports managed to complete new runway projects during that decade.
FAA began its efforts of establishing benchmarks to get a more clear understanding of airport runway capacity issues throughout the nation. This benchmark report examined 31 of our most heavily used airports. For each airport, FAA calculated an optimum substantial number of flights per hour under ideal conditions and reduced the number of operations per hour based on the most common bad weather configuration.
Whenever appropriate, FAA developed additional benchmarks that considered planned airport capacity improvements, new air traffic controller technologies and improved air traffic controller procedures.
While this analysis is instructive, these benchmarks only paint a partial picture. Runway capacity is in fact a very complex issue. There are many people who are unhappy that these benchmarks even exist. There is also concern about how these benchmark capacity figures will be used.
However, these benchmarks are an important starting point in beginning to reduce delays. This report confirms the simple fact that the demand for air travel often exceeds runway capacity at our busiest airports.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, we must reach consensus on a solution to our delay problems. Unfortunately, we have a limited number of options. In the long term, we have several ways to increase overall aviation capacity: First, through construction of new runways; second, by the adoption of new air traffic control procedures; and third, by development and deployment of new technologies.
Unfortunately, all of the remedies that we have at hand or look to in the future will take time. In the short term, however, we must institute actions that will help reduce delays through better scheduling and demand management.
Recently, Delta Airlines reworked its schedule at Atlanta-Hartsfield to make better use of off-peak periods by scheduling flights in 12 connecting banks instead of ten banks. This has had the effect of reducing peak hour delays from 20 minutes down to six minutes.
I have several recommendations I wanted to make, starting first relating to this banking issue. I strongly recommend that the other airlines review their own schedules to see if similar steps can be taken.
Second, airlines need to be granted a limited anti-trust exemption to allow them to discuss aspects of their schedules and to make more efficient use of airport capacity. Tomorrow we are going to have a hearing on that issue. As you know, Chairman Young and I and others, Mr. Lipinski, both sides of the aisle, have introduced H.R.1407, which will help resolve some of these issues. I intend to expedite the markup and passage of this legislation.
Third, we need to encourage airlines and travelers to use available capacity at regional airports.
Lastly, both FAA and Congress must also be prepared to consider limited forms of demand management. Imposing safety limits on take-offs and landings at our most congested airports and imposing congested pricing are also options that have been mentioned.
While these alternatives that I have just referred to may be unpopular solutions, I believe that they can aid in reducing delays and ensuring safety for our air traveling public. Our challenge in considering these changes will be to protect air service to our small communities, to provide opportunities to new entrant carriers and to continue to guarantee access to general aviation.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In a few minutes today we will hear from our first panelist, FAA Administrator Jane Garvey and then we will hear from our second panel of witnesses.
At this time I am pleased to yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today on the FAA's highly anticipated capacity benchmark report.
I would also like to thank Administrator Garvey and her dedicated staff for all their hard work putting this report together. I know it has been quite a challenge.
Capacity benchmarks for the nation's top airports provide a useful framework for better understanding airport runway capacity and airline demand throughout the country. Capacity benchmarks will add important information to the ongoing discussions regarding how to best address the growing delays and congestion at our nation's airports.
Unfortunately, there is some risk that the capacity benchmarks will be misinterpreted or misused. According to the FAA's own report, capacity benchmarks help identify problem areas but are not in themselves a solution or even an adequate basis for picking solutions.
Airport capacity is a very complex concept and it is not easy to quantify. Airport capacity is different from airport to airport, day to day, from hour to hour. A great number of factors such as weather and wind conditions, runway configurations, mix of aircraft types, air traffic control and airport terminal capacity, to name just a few, influence capacity.
The FAA, in its report has identified the maximum number of flights an airport can routinely handle under good weather conditions and adverse weather conditions. However, this is not an exact science. For example, controllers at a certain airport may be able to handle more than the maximum number of flights in one hour. However, they simply are not able to handle the greater number of flights for a long period of time.
In addition, the number of flights operated during adverse weather obviously depends on the weather conditions and can fall far below the reduced rate listed in the FAA report. Again, airport capacity changes from day to day, hour to hour.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
That is why under no circumstances should these capacity benchmarks be interpreted as capacity caps or ceilings. In addition, the FAA capacity benchmarks are just the snapshot of current runway capacity at the nation's top airports. They do not take into account air space capacity in the terminal or en route centers.
They also do not take into consideration the capacity of other airfield facilities such as taxiways, ramps and gates. Air space, air traffic control, air field facilities and terminal accommodations are all important factors that were not considered, but that greatly influence the volume and efficiency of airport operations and therefore airport capacity.
Again, capacity benchmarks are a useful tool in discussion regarding solutions to congestion problems plaguing our national aviation system. However, capacity benchmarks are just one tool. As I said, airport capacity is a complex equation. At the same time, we all know that delays and congestion are caused by many factors and there is no one easy solution.
Again, I want to thank Administrator Garvey for putting together this report. I look forward to continuing to work with you on a comprehensive solution to the delay problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MICA. Thank you.
I recognize the gentlemen from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no formal opening statement, but let me just say that I appreciate your calling this hearing on this very important, very timely topic. I appreciate the meeting that you and I had last night to discuss this and many other related topics.
I will say this: I know that many of these or most of these delays that people are so concerned about are caused by weather problems. There is not much we can do about that, but the public is demanding that we do some things. I think you are trying very hard, you and Ranking Member Lipinski and Ranking Member Oberstar are trying very hard to come up with the proper solutions.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is a fact of life that if people have 100 good flights and one really bad flight, the flight that they remember and the flight they talk about is that one really bad flight that they had and we all have to deal with that.
I know under your great leadership, and I appreciate the great start you have gotten off to in chairing this subcommittee and I want to work with you in every way possible to try to arrive at some solutions and some things that we can do to help alleviate some problems that are very, very important to the people all over this nation.
Thank you very much.
Mr. MICA. Thank you to the former Chair of this subcommittee. I want you to know that the current Chair even experiences those delays and frustrations and was diverted last night on my flight. I knew I was going to get in on time, but I ended up in Baltimore. I went through some horrible thunderclouds and I prayed all the way with my wife. We made it into Baltimore and then turned around and came back. But I missed both votes. I want that reflected in the record so my opponent in the next election knows that I, too, suffer those delays.
Mr. Oberstar, you are recognized.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We all, no matter what station in life, experience those delays. It is a continuing thorn in the crown of chairmanship to experience those delays.
Mr. MICA. It is a humbling thing, Mr. Former Chairman.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I urge observers of the congestion scene not to think of delay as monolithic. There is no silver bullet, which, if we pulled the trigger, would solve the problem. All too often, reporting on the subject intimates that there is this, if we just do this one thing, everything will be solved.
From the former Secretary of Transportation and the former Vice President hauling out of pocket a vacuum tube saying, ''This is what is the problem with the air traffic control system,'' it isn't. It never has been and it is not now.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are multiple causes: capacity of runways, capacity of the air traffic control system, capacity of the en route system, the terminal environment and airlines scheduling. Of those causal factors, runway capacity was the focus of the FAA study, which, I join Mr. Lipinski in congratulating Administrator Garvey and the whole staff, again, for doing a superb job as a follow-on of a previous study. Once again, FAA has done an outstanding job of reporting.
The report does tell us what we have known intuitively, and what many of us have addressed in previous hearings, that at the 30 busiest airports airlines have a tendency to build delays into the system by scheduling more flights than runways can accommodate, that runway capacity is limited, that we need to pour more concrete and asphalt to expand capacity and that we have to improve our air traffic control system.
But the study was very interesting. It sets two benchmarks for airport capacity. The first, optimal capacity, that assumes unlimited ceiling, unlimited visibility and no adverse winds. The second sets a reduced capacity level, assuming adverse weather, IFR (instrument flight rule) conditions.
The study shows that, at a few of the top 30 airports, schedules exceed optimum capacity for a few hours a day. For nearly half of the top 30 airports, the schedules exceed the reduced rate capacity for two to eight hours a day.
Now, you could conclude from the study that all we have to do is shift schedules at peak hours and reduce delays. But in my view, reducing schedules should not be the primary answer to delay. If schedules are reduced to the optimal format, then only a relatively small number of flights at a few airports will be shifted or eliminated.
If, on the other hand, you reduce flights to the lower benchmark level, worst weather conditions, you can really reduce delay, but you are taking a lot of capacity out of the system. I would be very cautious about reducing flights that do not exceed optimum capacity level because that would eliminate flights that can be handled in better conditions.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, if there have to be reductions in schedules, it should be done through voluntary action by the airlines as Delta and American have recently done. I would urge other airlines to review their situation at particular airports and make appropriate changes on their own that will help reduce congestion.
But in the real world, airlines are not likely to act unilaterally for fear of competitors moving in and absorbing capacity that they would yield.
That is why I have proposed and why we have introduced a bill that revives the once extant anti-trust immunity for the airlines with DOT oversight to discuss cutting back flights at times when scheduled operations exceed airport capacity.
The authority provided in the bill we have introduced would give airlines a tool, just one, that can be used in the short term to redistribute operations at congested facilities, while in the longer term, air space reconfiguration and airport capacity improvements move ahead.
Now, I would not favor another step of using FAA benchmarks to impose a legal limit on flights. Once you write something in law it becomes extremely inflexible and very difficult to change.
We have already had a bad experience with doing that in 1969 when Congress enacted capacity limits on hourly operations at five high-density airports. The slot program, combined with the 1986 buy-sell rule, has had a long and dismal history of windfall profits to carriers originally awarded the slots, who took property in the public domain, made it private property and then imposed restraints on competition, refusing to sell or rent slots to other carriers at reasonable prices or new competitors who could come in and offer competition.
We must not repeat those mistakes. I am also very, very leery of congestion pricing, which means higher costs for airlines, higher fares for passengers and discouraging service to small communities.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But if we do go down the path of some sort of slot control system envisioned in legislation, I can assure you that I will not support allocating slots only to the incumbent airlines. I will insist that slots be distributed so that we ensure that this scarce resource that we are then creating by legislation will be allocated fairly to large and small carriers serving the widest array of communities, and no windfall profits by assuring that there will be no permanent ownership of slots, which should then remain in the public domain, not in the private domain.
Shifting schedules to runway capacity levels must not be the only way to avoid congestion and delays. Handling flights without delay requires four essential components: realistic scheduling by the carriers, efficient air space design, effective through-put management and full use of the AIR-21 guaranteed funding levels for airport infrastructure and air traffic control technology modernization.
When we do all of those things, then passengers can have trust in airlines schedules and can make realistic travel plans. This committee also has to stand up to earmarking by the Appropriations Committee for airport capacity projects.
Improvement in the air traffic control procedures is essential to increase the capacity of the en route and terminal environment. FAA and the airlines have to speed up efforts to modernize our air traffic control procedures. We cannot continue with a system that basically was designed in the 1920s with bonfires and lighthouses and radio beacons in the 1930s and that still guides aircraft along routes designed 60-plus years ago.
Automation tools added in the 1970s still were superimposed upon those outmoded procedures and have remained relatively unchanged. So, relying on a fixed route system severely limits the capacity of our air space.
We provided $40 billion over three years in AIR-21. Is Bud Shuster up there smiling? I think so. But we cannot assume that pouring more concrete is the only answer. We also have to encourage the new runway technology, ADS-B and FMS and RNAV. All those have to be moved to the firing line as quickly as possible, especially for adverse weather, as the Chairman just cited and as I experienced myself over the weekend with sleet and ice storms in Northern Minnesota.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, we need to strike a balance in which delays are reduced to tolerable levels but do not excessively limit schedules that cause reduction in scheduled service to small communities.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Oberstar, if you are about to conclude—
Mr. OBERSTAR. I have concluded.
Mr. MICA. I didn't want to stop you, but I wanted to interrupt for just a second. Mrs. Kelly has a critical meeting that she is a couple of minutes late for. She just has one important thing she wanted to raise.
I can come back to you. I don't want to cut you off. I would never do that.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I concluded.
Mr. MICA. Mrs. Kelly, I know you have to leave. You are recognized.
Mrs. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just went through, Ms. Garvey, the numbers of major airports that you have listed as ones that are going to experience major delays in capacity. The thing that struck me is that 63 percent of the major city airports in the nation will experience some kind of capacity problems. Of that 63 percent, according to my figures, 23 percent are in the New York City area airports.
We have some serious problems in New York City. I am extremely concerned that we address those problems. Unfortunately, because I have to leave, I am going to submit questions to you in writing.
Part of our problem in New York is that, as you know, we don't have the ability to build more runway space. We need to start looking at our regional airports I think somehow and try to perhaps better utilize what we have.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, I thank you for coming today and speaking.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me speak.
Mr. MICA. I thank you.
I didn't mean to interrupt. If you want to conclude, I would be happy to have you do that.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I concluded. I am serious about that.
Mr. MICA. Thank you. I just wanted to extend that courtesy.
Let me recognize the gentle lady from California, Ms. Tauscher.
Ms. TAUSCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, Madam Administrator. Let me thank you and your very, very capable staff for all the support that you give to the San Francisco Bay area and Northern California. You have a special team assigned to the San Francisco airports expansion. I cannot tell you how critical that is for us.
What I really want to do is take a very brief moment. You are very well aware. I remember when you landed in California the night of Y2K. We didn't have any weather problems that night, but we weren't expecting those kinds of problems that night. But you are a great friend to us, as is your staff.
We are, as you know, are going through an expansion process that I think could be a model for the country that would highlight all of the complex challenges that are making air travel very vexing. At the same time we are trying to maintain and even increase, if possible, our safety numbers and to make sure that we are sustaining the economy, maintaining livable communities, and of course, protecting our environment.
We in California pride ourselves on being able to balance all three of those things. What I really have is an invitation. You and I just spoke briefly, personal, before. I would love to have you come to the Bay Area soon and join with me to host a regional forum that would highlight the opportunities for San Francisco airports infrastructure needs and to include specifically our environmental community, which is going to be a very important ally in finding a way to keep this balance going. I look forward to inviting you formally and to setting a date to do that.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the Bay Area, Mr. Chairman, where we are at the center of an economic earthquake, we have, as I said, many real problems, but we also have, I think, a great willingness to work together and to bring together the different groups that are going to be very important for us to reach a common sense, practical solution and at the same time spend real money to do the things that I think are going to create a 21st Century airport for us.
So, I look forward to hopefully having you in the Bay Area this spring. Thank you again for your hard work and for the hard work of your very able team.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MICA. Thank you.
I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pascrell.
Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for taking us to the FAA center in Atlantic City to understand the research and development that is going on there.
We can address these problems. We don't have to throw up our arms and surrender and we will not.
I want to compliment you, Madam Administrator, for the job that you are doing. What is going on there at that center a lot more people should know about as well. All of the problems that we address in the subcommittee are being addressed in a very aggressive way. So, I want to compliment you on that.
We are in a dilemma in that we know it, we see the problem. As Mr. Oberstar and the Chairman have said, we want one-shot deals that correct everything. It is not going to be that easy. Upgrades at Newark Airport, for instance, increase everyone's safety. That is a very central argument in all of this discussion and conjecture, the safety of people.
I would like to think that we have played some role in your decision to begin the national air space redesign. That is not so easy. As soon as we move flights out of one area we are affecting Cleveland, Ohio, particularly, and the northeast or Baltimore or Atlanta, Georgia. There is a ripple effect here.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Representing the Northern New Jersey area, the subject of many complaints I hear from constituents is about long delays at their airports. Many of those delays are not weather related. It comes as no surprise that at the top of the list of the most congested airports are La Guardia and Newark. Kennedy is not too far behind, however,
So, we have kind of like a smorgasbord in the northeast. Trying to address it and sort it out is going to take all of our efforts on both sides of the aisle.
I hope that we can use this report as the foundation to reassess what we do in terms of an air space redesign and other possible remedies to the problems. The problems must be addressed now. When airplanes in the air are circling airports three or four times before they can land because flights are backed up, we are not only using fuel, but also we are increasing the possibilities of problems and risks in the air.
The FAA report states that La Guardia can handle no more than 82 flights per hour. Yet, just this morning, CNN reported that the airlines there scheduled 91 flights per hour. Now, it seems to me, if that is the case, there needs to be an immediate response to the airlines that use LaGuardia Airport, using that as an example. I mean, the report is either valid or it is not valid. It is valid and I think the committee here needs to be strong about our response. You cannot have it both ways.
Newark, like most other airports, will only see delays get worse, something we have to look forward to in New Jersey and in the area. Over the next decade, this report states that the demand at Newark is estimated to increase 20 percent. Yet, at Newark we cannot increase our runways. In fact, we lengthened one of the runways and you have been part of helping to restructure the entire airport, whether it is a tower, whether it is the radar, all of those aspects that go into this, enough trained air traffic controllers who are not moving on to other areas where they can make more money within the system. It doesn't make any sense.
Perhaps a possible remedy for this over-scheduling could be the bill we are examining tomorrow on authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to grant anti-trust immunity to the airlines so that they can meet and discuss their schedules in order to reduce flight delays. That is a possibility, one part of the answer, of course.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are other potential remedies I look forward to examining such as building not only more runways in airports, but also more taxiways and aprons, which are critical to the process. How many times we have landed and we could not dock? How many times we have moved out on to the apron and never take off? That can be accomplished, I think, with less environmental impact which is part of, obviously, all of our agendas.
With increased demand we will see more planes. With more planes we may need to expand facilities in both of those regional airports that Congresswoman Kelly talked about a few moments ago.
The bottom line is that we need to take action to fix these problems and improve the lives of our constituents. So, I look forward.
Mr. Chairman, as the Ranking Member, count on our support. Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Duncan, you know that we are here to find solutions to this problem. It is on top of us. It is not something that is happening next week. It happened last week. I know we will address it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MICA. Let me recognize Mr. Johnson from Illinois.
Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a new Member of Congress and a new Member of the Committee, I will keep my comments brief, and I hope not too simplistic.
First of all, I want to not only echo, but commend is the right word, you, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Lipinski on your poignant comments in this area.
You know, I want to be not only fair, but I want to be responsible. I understand that as we are dealing with this issue this is far from a simple issue, far from a simple causation. I know there are multiple causes and solutions, potential solutions to the arena that we are dealing with.
But I want to say this to whoever wants to listen: That is that all 435 of us are sent here to represent constituents. I have found, even over the course of these five months, let alone the last five years, horrendous and unacceptable increase in delays, some of which are caused by issues that I am sure, a number of which are, that we have dealt with and are dealing with here today and others of which are caused by other factors.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I do know that those delays, for whatever their causes are and whatever the solutions might be, are just simply unacceptable to people who live in Champagne-Urbana and Chicago and Butte, Montana.
Not only this committee, but the airlines industry and the airports, I assume, are aware of what a tremendous problem this is and at least from my standpoint, I don't intend to sit around and think about it for the next four years while the problem gets worse.
Some of the fault lies, I am sure, with a variety of entities, including Congress. Some of the fault lies with parties that maybe will not want to accept the responsible, but they damn well better because it is a major problem and we have to address it.
Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.
I understand Mr. Honda from California has a statement. Mr. Honda.
Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the Chair and the Ranking Member for holding this hearing.
Airport capacity is of great interest to me because of the San Francisco Bay area of which I represent a portion. They are struggling to accommodate an increasing number of planes with limited runway capacity, as you all know.
The Bay Area will need to make some tough decisions in the coming years as to how the region will meet this increasing demand. There will be a prominent role for Congress to play. I am really pleased to be here to take part in that effort.
I have a couple of concerns and then a question to share with you, Administrator Garvey. I want to thank you for being in front of the subcommittee today and for your leadership. I am sure that it is a tough job, just as we have a tough job here.
I guess the quote I think of is my wife telling me that no one put a gun to your head to do this. So, we are all in it together to try to solve a complex problem. So, I would like the opportunity to work with you in our struggle to find the answers and the solutions for our communities and our country.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Around the country airports are considered gateways not only for people, but also for economic opportunity. This is especially true in the San Francisco Bay area. It is only natural for communities to take advantage of the regional resource that airports are. That means ensuring that there is enough capacity to meet demand by building new runways or altering flight paths.
I am fearful that this effort may in some instances come at the cost of environmental regulations, passenger safety and regional quality of life concerns. I hear daily from my constituents on these issues.
I look forward to beginning a real dialogue with you on these issues.
On a separate note, I would appreciate your thoughts on what role new technologies may play in improving airport capacity. I was recently at the NASA Ames Research Center where they had constructed a state-of-the-art air traffic control simulator. One of the main purposes of the simulator is to improve traffic flow, both on the tarmac and on the runways.
I have seen there that they are able to reconstruct problems. They are current problems and real problems that folks can look at it and come up with solutions and also train personnel.
So, my question is what is FAA doing to introduce these new technologies into aviation planning and congestion relief efforts. I would appreciate a comment on that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MICA. Thank you. We will let the Administrator respond after she makes her presentation.
At this time, I don't think we have any additional opening statements. I thank the Members who did participate.
I would like to recognize at this juncture our first panelist and our only witness on this panel and that is the Administrator of our Federal Aviation Administration, Jane Garvey.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are all anxious to hear your response to the Airport Capacity Benchmark Report, 2001. I want to personal thank you for complying with our request to get it out sooner rather than later.
Hopefully, some of your opening statement comments here will answer some of the questions that have already been raised. Thank you and welcome. You are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. JANE F. GARVEY, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you very much, Chairman Mica, Congressman Lipinski, Members of the Subcommittee. I will keep my opening remarks fairly brief. I thought your comments, Mr. Chairman, and so many of the Members articulated the issues far better than I can and really laid them out quite clearly.
Let me begin by saying our hope is that the capacity benchmarks report will provide valuable data to assist airports, airlines and the FAA to make better and much more fully informed decisions that will help, as Secretary Mineta said, close that gap between future demand and capacity.
We focused, as you all have mentioned, on 31 airports, including the top 30, because even though they represent fewer than six percent of our nation's commercial airports, they account for 70 percent of passengers traffic.
Furthermore, each of these airports is expected to experience increased capacity demands. The 31st airport, Memphis, was added because of its importance to the cargo industry.
For each of these 31 airports, we established, as Mr. Oberstar said, two numbers. The first is the number of hourly takeoffs and landings that can be safely accommodated in good weather. The second is the number that can be accommodated when the weather deteriorates, when radar separation is required to be provided. Those two numbers, we believe, describe a realistic expectation of performance for each one of those airports.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The benchmarks were determined in three ways. First of all, we went right to the air traffic team at the airport. We asked them to provide us with numbers based on their collective experience. They know it. They live it. We wanted the benefit of their experiences. Those numbers were compared with the historical arrival and departure data. Finally, those rates were calculated using an airfield capacity computer model. That same model was used to project benchmarks into the future. In addition, we looked at the planned improvements to understand the balance between future capacity and future demand.
Now, as many of you have said, much of the information in the report documents what all of us as frequent fliers know intuitively and that is that there are a handful of airports where demand is either at capacity or exceeds capacity and where in adverse conditions the resulting delays have impacts throughout the national air space system.
Some of you may have seen the Mitre Report that, I think, lays out very clearly what happens when there are delays at Newark Airport and how that ripples throughout the system. The report shows that there are eight airports that have high delays and have a disproportionate impact on the NAS, Atlanta-Hartsfield, Boston-Logan, Chicago-O'Hare, JFK, LaGuardia, Newark, Philadelphia and San Francisco.
As you all have said, and I think rightly so, when we approach an effort like this we always hope there will be a silver bullet or one single solution. But obviously, in this case there is not.
Each of these airports faces a unique set of challenges and therefore requires a specific set of solutions. The report provides us with a good starting point. Our emphasis, and when I say ''our emphasis,'' I mean government, the airlines and the airports, must be to quickly to shift to solutions.
I remember, Mr. Chairman, when you sat at the FAA building and you said, ''What would happen if we focused on the top five airports and really, in a sense, pulled out all the stops?''
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have tried to do that with these airports. We have taken a first cut at potential solutions for each one of these airports. Some of the actions are already underway. They include new technology, some of the free flight tools, for example, some of the air traffic control procedures that Mr. Oberstar referred to earlier and in some instances, runways.
But in other cases, we know that the airport needs to initiate, and we have suggested, that they initiate capacity studies to look at the issue in a much broader way, with a much broader perspective, including such things as airfield considerations, air traffic control procedures and airlines practices.
As for the airlines, and again, I think you have mentioned this, we have seen some very positive steps. Delta is using similar data to modify their own schedule at Atlanta. We know that it is still early, but those modifications appear to have smoothed out the peaks in the schedule.
I think a number of you are familiar with what American Airlines has done in Chicago. They found that isolating the aircraft that serves Chicago from the remainder of the system helps reduce the effect of delays. We think that is very, very positive as well.
I want to also mention the work that is being done at Newark. Continental, I think, has really stepped up and is working not only with the airport, but with us as well. In fact, we meet quarterly to consider options. So, I think those are all very promising steps.
Mr. Chairman, I know that this committee is committed, as we are, to finding the solutions to the capacity challenge that we are facing. As you said, Congressman, we don't want to throw up our hands. We can solve this.
I know that my colleagues and my counterparts in the aviation community share this commitment. The benchmarks are valuable data, but, you have said, it is not the only data. It shouldn't be viewed in isolation. But it is a good baseline to use as we fashion the right set of solutions.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me underscore once again what the Secretary has said, and what I have heard a number of airline CEOs say as well. We are in this together and we simply must develop solutions in a collaborative and a constructive way.
I would be very happy to answer any specific questions that you might have.
Mr. MICA. Thank you. I thank you for your opening comments and again, for your cooperation in getting this report to us on an expedited basis.
There are about six of seven critical areas, I think, that have been identified. As Mr. Oberstar also pointed out, there is still capacity, but during peak periods in particular, these airports are strained.
There have been some suggestions made. I believe the Secretary came before us and I know at least informally and publicly he has suggested some congestion peak pricing. How do you think this fits in the picture?
Ms. GARVEY. Well, I think certainly in the case of LaGuardia we have been working very, very closely with the Port Authority to look at a couple of demand management strategies that we would publish in the Federal Register. We hope that those are going to be ready within two or three weeks, to put into the Federal Register to elicit some comments.
We have been very mindful, though, of the policy questions that have been raised by this committee, Mr. Oberstar today and Members of this committee at other hearings. That is that we also want to be mindful of access to small communities. We also want to be mindful of the competition issue.
The options that we are considering and that we are working with the Port Authority on, take into account those issues. Finding that right balance has been somewhat challenging, but we are very close to getting that into the Federal Register.
Mr. MICA. I think you commented, and I did, about what American has done and I believe one of the other airlines in looking at the banking question, which is part of the solution.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Oberstar also said that it is not the whole approach we should be taking. We do have, and even in my community we have a lot of airports that are under capacity. I am still at a loss as to how we better utilize some of the under capacity.
My concern was heightened yesterday when I was at 37,000 feet, trapped with a pilot who had just missed his connection. We were both shanghaied by weather. It was no one's fault. There was nothing you could do about it. But we were shanghaied to Baltimore.
We were talking about the Delta potential settlement. This pilot said that there were several concerns he had. We had a discussion. It helps take your mind off of those thunderclouds. But he said there were some additional scope clauses being put into the provisions for Delta pilots, which would limit the number of regional jets and some of the other aircraft serving what might be potential markets in some of these underserved communities.
How do we deal with serving these underserved airports that have capacity? We have labor agreements. I mean they are going to cut a deal that is going to be around for some time. It puts further constraints on our ability to get into some of those markets.
Ms. GARVEY. Well, I am not familiar with the clause that he is referring to, but let me just speak a little bit about it. It was an interesting comment.
Mr. MICA. I am not either. I thought, my God, here we are trying to find ways to service underserved areas. I will bet I could go through this panel here and find enough airports that are underserved. Most of our problems, as you have cited, are at six percent of the airports.
Ms. GARVEY. I think that is still a question we don't have the full answer to. But I will give you at least part of the answer. First of all, I think Congress took a great step forward through AIR-21 because those additional dollars that are now going to small and mid-sized airports are going to provide the infrastructure at those airports that make it much more attractive to go there. So, I think that is a very positive step forward on the part of Congress.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition, you are going to hear from Tom Kinton from Boston who is on the next panel. I know he is living this firsthand. They are working very, very aggressively to deal with the Logan problems and the Logan challenges by encouraging regionalization.
In fact, I noticed in an article the other day, a USA Today article, that Boston-Logan is actually promoting and advertising for some of the airports that are in New England such as, Manchester or Worcester or others. So, I think those are the kinds of things that we are going to see more of.
I think Los Angeles is doing the same sort of thing, looking at their regional airports. Even in New York, when we think of what is going on with their three airports, we are hearing that the Port Authority is talking much more about looking at the New York airports as a system. The capacity studies that they are taking on really look at those airports as a system. We need more of that.
Mr. MICA. I am going to give the other Members a shot at this. Tomorrow we are having our hearing on the anti-trust question. I think you have had an opportunity to look at the anti-trust question. I think you have had an opportunity to look at our 1407. What is your official position?
Ms. GARVEY. I always defer that to the Secretary.
Mr. MICA. Well, no, you are the FAA Administrator. We want your comments. Speak now or forever hold your peace.
Ms. GARVEY. I know the Secretary is very interested in this. This is something that I think you all have mentioned, particularly in bad weather.
Mr. MICA. If you have any problems with it, we need to hear about it real soon. We are going to have the hearing tomorrow and I intend to mark it up within two weeks, if Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Oberstar are willing.
Ms. GARVEY. Well, I can say that the Secretary has certainly expressed great interest in that concept. So, I think we will work closely with you.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MICA. Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. LIPINSKI. I yield to Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. MICA. Mr. DeFazio, the gentleman from California.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Oregon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MICA. That was close.
Mr. DEFAZIO. We are a little sensitive to that. We are bordering on the Pacific Ocean.
I thank Mr. Lipinski for yielding his time. We had a deal that I wouldn't give you a speech, but I would get to ask questions because I have to leave. So, I saved some of your time. I hope to get credit for that.
Now, you have this information, the report. I didn't have a copy. I borrowed one from the staff, so I can't wave it around. But, we have the report. We can see the spiffy little charts. We can see the spikes that are above capacity under optimal conditions and under limited conditions.
What happens today if an airlines says, ''Well, we want to land at Atlanta-Hartsfield or we want to land at Boston-Logan. See that big spike there where we know we can't land all the planes that are currently scheduled? We want to schedule five flights to come in at that time because we are establishing a new spoke on our hub.''
What happens today?
Ms. GARVEY. Well, today, with deregulation there is a lot of flexibility that the airlines have. Our hope is that when we are laying this information out that it encourages all of us to take a look at it and figure out what we can do, what the right solutions are.
Mr. DEFAZIO. You mean they would be allowed to schedule those flights, or at least schedule them on paper.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. GARVEY. That is right, Congressman. They would schedule them on paper. Obviously, from the air traffic perspective, we couldn't get them all off at the same time so there would be some staggering.
Mr. DEFAZIO. How would the priority be set on a daily basis? Say there were 50 flights that were scheduled to come in during a certain period. They are already over capacity during that period. Another airline wants to schedule another five flights during that period. Do their five flights go to some lower priority than the 50 that had been previously scheduled or is that just decided on a daily basis, whoever contacts ATC first gets to go first?
Ms. GARVEY. The latter is exactly how it is. I have my air traffic experts here and they tell me that priority is determined on a daily basis.
Mr. DEFAZIO. So, there is no incentive for the airlines to limit operations at times that are already over-subscribed except for the fact that their passengers are delayed, but their passengers don't have that information so they don't know they are almost inevitably going to be delayed.
Ms. GARVEY. That is correct, Congressman. I would defer to the airlines, but I do think they would say that they are really responding to the demand and that, you know, when you reach—
Mr. DeFazio. That is an interesting question. I mean, are they responding to demand? I don't get to say, ''Hey, you know, I really wanted to fly at 6:30. I get a schedule that says you can fly at 6:00 a.m. out of Eugene to Denver.''
I don't get to say, ''I would rather go at 5:30 or I would like to go at 8:00.''
It is not demand. It is sent down to the receiving end, which is the passengers, by the airlines. Demand could perhaps be modified. Rather than withstand delays, people might be willing to change their schedules a little bit. Leave a little earlier or leave a little later, and you probably won't be delayed.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think an awful lot of the blame here has to go to the airlines. I find it a little odd that the only solution we are being offered right now by the committee is ''Well, let us wave their anti-trust so that they can get together and collude over schedules,'' instead of saying, ''Look, we are already over capacity during that hour; nobody else is going to schedule a flight during that hour.''
Nobody else is going to schedule a flight during that hour. That is the way it is. There is no capacity there. It just seems odd to me that anybody who wants to can just schedule another 100 flights during that hour. Whoever contacts ATC first or can get off the ground first, wherever they are, well then they have priority on a daily basis. This is a free-for-all system.
Don't we have an awful lot of hours of the day where these airports seem kind of empty?
Ms. GARVEY. Interestingly enough, and I think this is one of the ways that the capacity benchmarks are helpful. There is not a lot of unused capacity. Certainly at some airports there may be. But if you look at the top airports, there is not a lot of unused capacity in the system.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Except the back of the clock, maybe?
Ms. GARVEY. Well, at the back of the clock, the very end of the clock, there may be. Particularly at those top six, we are really seeing it. There is not a lot of flexibility in the system when that capacity is so taken up. So, that is part of the challenge.
Mr. DEFAZIO. People tend to look at the system as an East Coast system, but we have a nationwide system. Those of us in the west are at the other end of the system. I think the problems for people in the west are a little different than the problems of the people who want to fly to LaGuardia.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. GARVEY. I think that is probably true. We do know that that triangle that we have talked about in the past that run from Chicago to Boston to Washington and back up to Chicago really is the most congested.
Again, I would go back to some of the experience, and this is really reinforcing your point. When you have airlines taking a look at their schedules as some have done, they are able to make some modifications, smooth it out, make some changes.
So, again, I think what we will see here, particularly with the top eight, is a recommendation for airlines, on a voluntary basis to take a look at the schedules and make changes where it may make sense. I think there will be some places where it will make sense.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Would the gentleman yield? If I understood the gentleman rightly, he is suggesting that an option would be to freeze existing schedules. Is that right? Rather then engage in the anti-trust negotiation?
Mr. DEFAZIO. At the identified over-capacity hours.
Mr. OBERSTAR. But that might have the unintended consequence of freezing out new entrant airlines.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Well, that goes to our whole problem with the way we have allocated slots as a property right, which I don't agree with. But that is a subject for another day.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I just wanted to raise that.
Mr. DEFAZIO. I thank the gentleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MICA. Welcome tomorrow to our second hearing when we will discuss that.
The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to continue some of the points that have just been raised. I want to see if I can get clear. You said there is not a lot of unused capacity. Taking that one step further, is there a great deal of over-scheduling now and if so, how much? What percentage of these delays would you attribute to over-scheduling if there is a lot of over-scheduling?
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, in looking at the benchmarks, you really have to look at individual airports. So, those top six that I talked about, the significantly delayed airports, are either at capacity or slightly over capacity during parts of the day.
When weather deteriorates, it becomes a real problem. I am not sure I can give you an exact percentage at those airports. We really have to look at them individually. I will turn to my air traffic experts and see if they have a better answer.
They are reinforcing that we look at the individual airports. Maybe I should be more clear. When I was talking about the unused capacity, I was talking principally about those most congested airports. There is not really much unused capacity at those airports.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, other than weather, do you think that over-scheduling is the second biggest problem or the second biggest cause of delays?
Ms. GARVEY. I am not sure we can go immediately to that. That is why I think it is worth the airlines taking a look at those individual airports and looking at the scheduling as some of the airlines have already done. I think sometimes there are small modifications or changes you can make that might smooth out the system.
It is clear that we have problems at some of these airports. I think there is something all of us can do. One of the problems, and I think you may hear this from Mr. Ryan, is in the en route area as well.
So, we have terminal issues, but we also have the airlines or the aircraft trying to get into the flow to get into, for example, Detroit. That is why the work that we are doing in the choke points, such as opening up sectors, is so critical and so important. My point is that it has to be attacked almost on a multiple front.
Look at scheduling. Look at choke points. Look at all of those issues.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, let me ask you about that. The Chairman mentioned in his opening statement the fact that Delta had reviewed their schedule and has gotten their delays down from an average of 20 minutes in Atlanta to six minutes. Is that accurate? You mentioned that other airlines are doing that now. Are most of the airlines, at your request or on their own initiative are most of the airlines reviewing their schedules?
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Have any others completed those reviews or have any others made the progress that Delta apparently has made in Atlanta?
Ms. GARVEY. I suspect Mr. Ryan will have more accurate information. I certainly know about the work that Delta has done in Atlanta and that American has done in Chicago. Continental is looking at its schedule every single week and every single day at Newark as well. I understand United has taken some of those same steps at San Francisco. Perhaps Mr. Ryan can be more specific about that.
Mr. DUNCAN. Okay. Let me just mention two other things very quickly because I am sure my time is already up or close to it. We have been given a list saying that at least six of the major airports, Kennedy, LaGuardia, O'Hare, San Francisco and two or three others where some of the worst congestion is, there are no plans at any of those major airports for any new runways.
Are you looking at that and encouraging some of those busier airports to consider the possibility of new runways if at all possible?
Secondly, totally unrelated, if we do something to start enforcing capacity limits I know these capacity benchmarks are sort of a starting point will you try to keep in mind a point that Mr. Oberstar just mentioned about making sure that we don't stop new entrants from coming in and that we also safeguard or consider these underserved communities. Obviously, that is a big concern of mine.
Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, absolutely. That, frankly, is the great challenge as we are looking at LaGuardia Airport. We want to do the best that we can to make sure that those public policy questions that are so important to this committee are protected. You know, it won't be perfect, but the best that we can under any construct that would involve any sort of demand management strategies. We are only looking at LaGuardia.
You asked about runways. Yes, absolutely, to the extent that airports can look at runways, we are encouraging that. We are asking some airports to undertake capacity studies that include what might happen with runways. It includes also air traffic control procedures.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
San Francisco, for example, is in the very early stages of discussing a runway. We are certainly committed to working very closely with them on that issue.
Mr. DUNCAN. On the runways, we have to do something about these environmental laws so that we shorten that time span that it takes. It is just crazy to take ten or fifteen years to build a runway that we should be able to build in two or three years, just because of all these environmental rules and regulations and red tape.
Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, at the request of this committee, we will be submitting a report to Congress very soon on some recommendations that we have on airport planning streamlining. I know ACI and AAAE have been working with you or with your staff on that issue.
Mr. DUNCAN. I know Secretary Mineta is very interested in that. He has mentioned that.
So, thank you very much.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman. I recognize Mr. Oberstar.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you again for a very splendid delivery.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Reducing to a few judicious comments a very extensive and complex report shows once again your mastery of the subject matter.
How are the daily conference calls working between FAA and the airlines on weather, coordinating information technology, the outlook for the day, and capacity limitations that may arise because of weather? How is that working?
Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, I think that is going very, very well. We conducted an in-depth study with the airlines in the fall about what we could learn from last summer. As a result of that, we have conducted some extensive training that I think has been very, very helpful and we are doing more. We are doing more daily critiques and asking how did it go yesterday? What did we learn? So, I think they are going very well. I have hooked into a couple of them. They are interesting to listen to.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I will also add that since last we talked about this, Canada has started joining in on these conference calls as well. So, Canada is another player who is very important as we look at that northeast corridor and the use of some of their air space. So, that is helpful.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Is the effect to reduce the amount of uncertainty or of holding of traffic so that you don't over delay in one area, which has the consequence of spreading delay all over the system?
Ms. GARVEY. That is exactly right. Many of the airlines have said that they want more predictability. But they also raise some very, I think, interesting and legitimate concerns about whether we are sometimes too conservative on our ground stops. Obviously we care deeply about safety. That drives everything we do. But we have looked at that very carefully with the airlines and I think through the training we have done this year we have a much better understanding of all of our roles including when we ought to be putting ground stops in and when we ought to be letting the dispatcher and the pilot make the call. That is important as well.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I know that in this kind of situation it takes a pretty thick hide to deal with such a matter when everyone is clamoring for capacity and saying, well, you are being too conservative. But I will tell you, the traveling public would rather you be conservative on ground stops. Because the first incident in the air that results in loss of life because of weather will cause a huge outcry, and justifiably so.
Ms. GARVEY. Absolutely. I appreciate your saying that. Thank you.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I have read with some interest the experiment that is underway in the en route environment of reducing vertical separation from 2,000 to 1,000 feet and reducing horizontal separation, especially in the en route environment, but also reducing horizontal separation on approach.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am somewhat concerned about the vertical separation, but I am very concerned about horizontal separation with wake vortex problems that can, from a 757, cause disruption for those few 727s even that are in the system and smaller aircraft.
I know you have some wake vortex studies underway, but I just hope that all this pressure for capacity doesn't stampede the FAA into taking risks in the en route and terminal environment that can have unintended consequences.
Ms. GARVEY. I appreciate your saying that. I think those are excellent points. Perhaps we could brief you in more detail on some of the studies and where we are. I think your statement underscores why it is so challenging. These are difficult issues and we cannot compromise safety. So, I appreciate those comments.
Mr. OBERSTAR. In the end, no matter what we say or do here, as you said, the report is information only. It is what we do with that information that is useful. I have ultimate confidence that the air traffic controllers, and I have heard this from the Director of the New York TRACON, the Chicago TRACON, and the Washington area TRACON that they will never, never exceed capacity limits in a way that will endanger safety. I believe the air traffic controllers will not allow themselves to be stampeded into risky procedures.
Ms. GARVEY. I think they are the best in the world. They take their mission very seriously. I appreciate your comments.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I noted with interest your extensive comments about Newark which goodness knows, all they need is another runway 5,000 feet apart or 4,300 feet apart from any one of the existing runways. That would solve about 90 percent of the problems there; wouldn't it?
Ms. GARVEY. That is right. The challenge for all of the New York airports is the land constraints that they are operating under.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Well, you do wonderfully with the 980-foot separation, as do the airlines that operate out of that airport. Thank you very much, Administrator.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Mr. Oberstar.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.
Let me recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Horn.
Mr. HORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I enjoyed your testimony, as usual. You come well prepared. Let me ask you a few fundamentals. How much money is in the airport improvement fund today?
Ms. GARVEY. Today it is at the AIR-21 authorized numbers and it is $3.5 billion.
Mr. HORN. $3.5 billion, not trillion?
Ms. GARVEY. Billion, yes, sir.
Mr. HORN. We are up to trillions in many other areas, so, $3.5 billion. If you put an extra runway on a number of airports, how soon would they take that up, if you just used current construction dollars and time and all that, but just assume that, do we have the money coming down the line that can meet this or are you expecting local airport authorities to chip in also and get their own bond issue?
Ms. GARVEY. Well, again, it has been a while since I have been directly involved in airport planning, but I think the AIR-21 numbers are very, very solid. I think that the AIR-21 numbers combined with the kind of revenue streams that an airport like Logan or some of the larger airports will serve them well.
We have been less focused on numbers since Congress has been so generous on the money side and more focused on some of the environmental issues or the planning issues that cause runways to take a long time to get underway.
Mr. HORN. Do we have a model that says this airport needs one 10,000 runway, one 5,000, et cetera, in terms of the small commuter planes which amass our airports now?
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. GARVEY. At the present time, we are developing with the airlines and also with the airport community something called the NAS Operation Plan. That is really a ten-year horizon of where we need to be and where we need to go with aviation.
It includes new runways. It includes technology. It includes avionics. It really includes all elements. So, contained within that would be the runway needs as we look out ten years on the horizon.
Mr. HORN. How many airports really need a 10,000-foot runway?
Ms. GARVEY. I am not sure I can give you the exact number. We can certainly provide that, but it is very few.
Mr. HORN. Insert it in the record, if you would.
[The information received follows:]
There are 129 civil and joint-use airports in the U.S. that have runways that are 10,000 feet or longer. A number of these airports are surplus military airports at which long runways were required for military aircraft. Long runways are typically warranted at airports with long-haul service by heavily loaded airline aircraft. Proposals have been made to build new runways, 10,000 feet or longer, over the next 10 years at Denver, Detroit, Dulles, Baltimore, and Tampa. Proposals have also been made to extend, to
10,000 feet or longer, existing runways at Cleveland, Charlotte and Houston.
Mr. HORN. What is your thinking if Airbus 500 passengers start landing all over the United States? Does that take more than a 10,000 runway?
Ms. GARVEY. I am looking at Congressman Coyne and he is saying no. So, I guess he is the aviation expert on that.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HORN. No, they will never land her or we hope.
Ms. GARVEY. Ten thousand feet, Congressman, will do it.
Mr. HORN. What is the trade-off of the schedules versus the runway? It is often the least bad of something when you have a lot of money, is that your operations costs are much more than your infrastructure costs over time.
So, scheduling, which means you could use a runway much more than some and in some there are too many arriving at six o'clock in one place or taking off in one place at 8:00 a.m. That is just chaos on the freeways, on the infrastructure of the hangar and all the rest of it.
Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, you are right. That is why we focused on the airport runways. That, again, was the basis of this study. Take a look at the capacity. What can we really handle? But it is also interesting that you make the analogy with highways and so forth, because you are right. These are problems that other modes are experiencing as well.
Mr. HORN. In the case of Los Angeles, I am strongly for the 10,000-foot runway. I have been told over the years that some of the pilots really think it is a little dangerous after midnight to land there. Although I am not aware of any crash in that sense. The crash came when the plane was maneuvering on the airport.
Is there any thought ever on the east coast, west coast, gulf coast about an offshore airport?
Ms. GARVEY. I have not heard of anything, any suggestion directly related to that. I would imagine the environmental issues are enormous.
Mr. HORN. Well, in 1972 I suggested that for the San Pedro Bay. My predecessor, Glenn Anderson, said, ''Well, I live up there. That will be over my dead body.'' So, not much happened on that.
When you go and watch that Hong Kong off shore, you know that frankly it is a good thing to do because it doesn't affect the cities involved. It will seem like a lot of money, but you could also have, I think, more things bought there by the airport community. So, it is something I would give some thought to. They can say, well, that is out in the world of the 22nd or 23rd Century. But we ought to try an experiment on that.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. HORN. What are you going to do to get more money in the improvement fund?
Ms. GARVEY. In the AIP fund?
Mr. HORN. Right.
Ms. GARVEY. Well, I will tell you, I am going to look to Congress again.
Mr. HORN. Well, that is fine, but we want your advice on this. Is there something we are missing to get in that pot?
Ms. GARVEY. Well, no. Actually, with the President's budget, we are very grateful for the AIR-21 levels. I think those are very solid levels for us and we would be very pleased if the President's budget was passed at the levels that we have asked for.
Mr. HORN. Thank you.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, sir.
Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.
I will recognize another gentleman from California, Mr. Honda.
Mr. HONDA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will go back to my original question, which is the application of new technology and studying air traffic control capacity, the tarmac and taxiway design. Is the FAA using technology to look at such issues? Can technology really increase the current capacity as it stands now with that application?
Ms. GARVEY. Well, Congressman, I was interested in your comments before because you mentioned Ames. We work very, very closely with NASA. That was an issue that I was concerned about when I arrived at the FAA. I wanted to make sure that we were in very close coordination with NASA and took advantage of the wonderful technology and talent that they have as well. So, we have a very coordinated agenda together.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In fact, our air traffic controllers have visited that tower simulation that you talked about. We have learned a great deal from that. A lot of the free flight tools that we are now deploying were coordinated in their early stages or in their research stages with NASA. They are working on a lot of our free-flight tools as well.
We think technology is absolutely part of the solution. It is sometimes a simplification to say that it is the only solution and I know I have asked even within the FAA, whether we can quantify how much benefit we will receive from technology. It is a little bit difficult to do. You almost have to look at each airport individually. We have heard it ranges anywhere from about five percent to up to 20 percent, depending on the technology, the airport and so forth.
So, it is definitely part of the solution. We are working closely with NASA to implement the new technologies and to take advantage of the expertise there.
Mr. HONDA. What I hear you saying then is that it is in its initial stages right now?
Ms. GARVEY. Well, I don't mean to leave you with that impression. We are actually deploying a number of the tools that NASA worked on. For example, something that we call Free Flight Phase One, are automation tools for our controllers. Those are going out into the field now.
Some of the research that NASA is doing for us now is a little bit more long term, but we are definitely deploying the technologies that we have learned from NASA for which they have done all the research work. We are deploying those tools even as we speak.
Mr. HONDA. The beauty of that simulator, from what I understand, is that it can understand each and every airport situation, so you are really looking at the real situation.
Ms. GARVEY. That is right. It is a great tool for controllers.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. HONDA. Is there more support that is needed in order to pursue this avenue of using technology? Could there be more help from other resources or from this committee?
Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, that is always a great question to get asked because particularly in the area of research, we think there is more that we can do.
I want to underscore that, the private sector has really stepped to the fore as well. They are doing a great deal of the research along with us. So, I think there is a lot going on. There is always the thought that research could use more money. But we know you have to balance it with operations and balance it with deploying some of the new technologies that we are trying to do now.
Mr. HONDA. Thank you.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you.
Mr. MICA. I recognize the gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Good afternoon to you.
Ms. GARVEY. Good afternoon. It is good to see you.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I want to just bring you up to date. You came in, of course, to my district and had the dedication of the XNA Regional Airport. It is going great guns, as you know, far exceeding any expectations, with more access to different areas of the country. So, it is all good news to the growth in that area and that airport. Thank you for your help on that.
In reference to my town of Fort Smith, it is interesting that we just got the news that the Delta Connection pulled out, which is the result, you know, of traffic flows. But just to note, if American takes over TWA, they very likely would have a route going from Fort Smith to St. Louis, which would give new access to the east coast. I guess the point would be that that could be a subtle benefit of a merger, if that occurs. So, there might be some benefit to my region if that actually comes about. Just a little information for you.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Ms. Garvey, I wanted to thank you for your testimony and ask you about the delays that you found that were attributable to airline scheduling—I read the number eleven percent. Is that an accurate reflection as to the delays resulting from airline scheduling?
Ms. GARVEY. Well, that is the number, I think, that Mr. Ryan referred to in his testimony. It is an accurate number based on the information we have. We used what is called OPSNET data. We think that could be more precise. We are transitioning to a new form of data which, I think, will give us even more accuracy.
It is important, though, to also note that 11 percent is accurate. It is also important to note that when you have delays at those eight pacing airports, if you will, it often can ripple through the system. That, of course, is the great challenge.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. That is 11 percent on airlines scheduling. There could be a ripple effect from that. How do you break down the rest of it? I know you covered some of that, but what are the other delays?
Ms. GARVEY. Weather is always a factor in delays. Sometimes it is construction on an airport could be a cause of delay as well. Sometimes there are mechanical issues.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Traffic control?
Ms. GARVEY. Traffic control and technology.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Was there a specific percent given to air traffic control?
Ms. GARVEY. There will be, but I would have to give that to you. I can tell you that equipment delays are something like one and a half percent. But we can provide you with a better breakdown. It has been somewhat challenging and that is something that we are working with the airlines on. How do we really categorize it? How do we break it down?
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The information received follows:]
The FAA's Operations Network (OPSNET) breaks down delays into five categories: weather, volume, equipment, runways, and other (e.g. taxiway closure). For calendar year 2000, 68.7 percent of delays were attributable to weather, 14.0 percent of delays were attributable to traffic volume, 2.1 percent of delays were attributable to equipment failure, 5.9 percent of delays were attributable to runway problems and 9.2 percent of delays were attributable to other causes.
We have now developed a standard definition for aviation delays. According to that definition, a flight is considered delayed if it arrives at the destination gate 15 minutes or more after its scheduled arrival time. We are currently testing the use of this standard definition for aviation delays with four airlines. The four airlines supply information to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) on a voluntary basis regarding the causes for cancellations and delays so that the consumer will have more and better information. We are supporting BTS in this effort.
Additonal information on this subject is found in the Department's Inspector General's audit report titled Air Carrier Flight Delays and Cancellations (Report CR-2000-112, July 25, 2000). The report analyzed air carrier attribution of gate departure delays, e.g. aircraft delays up to pushing back from the gate. The Inspector general indicated that 15 percent of delays were due to air traffic control, 11 percent of delays were due to weather, and 74 percent of delays were due to air carrier factors and other causes.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. In your testimony you mentioned that you reviewed some of the data that you were getting back with the airports and asked for their response, which is terrific. Did you go back with the results that you found to the airline community and ask for any additional information or a response from them?
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. GARVEY. We worked with the airlines at the individual airports. When we first put in place the methodology, we wanted to test it to make sure that we were heading in the right direction. So, we tested it out at six airports. The airlines at those airports were involved.
When we went back to the 31 airports, we involved the airlines at those particular airports. Much of this information comes from information that the airlines are pretty familiar with. In fact, Delta's decision to make the modifications they did was based on data that is very, very similar. So this
is familiar information to the airlines.
I think what is going to be critical now as we think through the action plan, is to really make sure that we have the airlines, the airports, all of us at the table thinking it through. That is going to be important.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Let me ask you a quick question here and end on it. You have an irate air traveler coming up to you and he says, ''Ms. Garvey, what are you going to do about the traffic congestion?'' or he makes a complaint. What is your answer to him? I am sure this has happened.
Ms. GARVEY. Well, you always hope that the person has more than a few minutes, if that is a serious question because the answer is complex. You say, ''Look, we are looking at it in many ways.''
It is much of what we have talked about today. Although you can't answer the question by looking only at technology, we are working as hard as we can to get that technology out. We are also looking at air traffic control procedures and scheduling. We know airlines are also looking at that. Additionally, airports are doing what they can to get runways in.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. You did well in 30 seconds. I am going to try that answer out when I get hit.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. GARVEY. I am sorry you get asked that a lot.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you very much.
Mr. MICA. I think she flies under disguise, like I am going to do.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kirk.
Mr. KIRK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, like Congressman Lipinski, I have more than just an academic interest in O'Hare.
Ms. GARVEY. I will bet.
Mr. KIRK. I see from your report that on a good weather day O'Hare is poorly functioning three and a half hours a day and on a bad weather day, O'Hare is poorly functioning eight hours a day with 18 percent growth over the next ten years expected at our facility.
I recently toured the facility with the Mayor's team and we discussed LAHSO--the Land and Hold Short Operation, which was a commonly used operation in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s at O'Hare. I will note that the intersections at the O'Hare airports still leave runways longer than all of the runways at Midway. So, there is certainly potential there.
My understanding is if we were able to implement a safe Land and Hold Short Operation, 20 percent of the delays at O'Hare could be eliminated.
Now, you have work going on in Oklahoma City under FAA contract to look at how we can safely implement Land and Hold Short. I wonder if you could describe how you are doing and what the prospects are for re-instituting this procedure.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you very much, Congressman. You have accurately outlined why land and Hold Short is critical. We think it is a big, big help in dealing with delays, not just at O'Hare, but at other airports as well.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Again, as you rightly characterized it, it has been something that has been used throughout the years. On the other hand, the pilots have raised some safety issues. We always take those issues seriously, which is why we are working so hard at Oklahoma City to do the modeling.
I remain very optimistic that we are going to be able to solve this. We need that kind of capacity. I know that pilots recognize its importance. Controllers do and the airlines do as well. Again, I think this is an issue. We will do the modeling, but we have got to get everyone at the table saying, let us take a hard look at it. Let us figure out how we can solve this problem.
Mr. KIRK. I want to help you in any way I can.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate that.
Mr. KIRK. We need to have the Airline Pilots Association and the FAA and the Congress sit down and see if we could make this happen.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you, Congressman. I think the airlines should be included as well, because it really is in all of our interests.
Mr. KIRK. On your O'Hare benchmarks, I understand we are missing the new runway data because it wasn't planned and it wasn't requested by the airport. If I or this committee requested it, could we get that?
Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, I am sure that that request would be honored. In the action plan that I referred to earlier, as another consideration, we have suggested that the airport might want to take a look at the capacity study, update what they did in 1991. They seemed very willing to do that. I understand the Mayor mentioned that yesterday in some comments he had. So, I am encouraged by that. I think that will be very helpful.
That study allows you to look at airfield reconfiguration. We can do what San Francisco or what Los Angeles is doing and reconfigure existing runways. It allows you to look at a host of issues. I don't feel people should feel constrained by it. It is an opportunity to add some capacity at this very important airport.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. KIRK. If you were able to fill in the numbers, certainly, I think you would have an even better selling document than a John Gresham novel in Chicago. It would certainly be well read.
One of the other keys to this is the reliever and corporate aviation around O'Hare, both Palwaukee and to a lesser extent, Waukegan. Right now at Palwaukee, just north of O'Hare, we have a crumbling main runway as the principal reliever to O'Hare. I encourage you to take a look at that. There is a fiscal year 2001 or 2002 request for the runway.
I know at Teterboro, maybe this is an urban legend, we had the FBO just paint an ''x'' in the runway until the money came through to repair it. But we are certainly getting to that stage in Palwaukee, but it plays a critical role in helping to take the heat off O'Hare.
Ms. GARVEY. We will take a serious look at that. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. KIRK. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.
Let me recognize the gentleman from South Dakota, Mr. Thune.
Mr. THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Garvey, crowded air space has not been a problem in South Dakota. But to get anywhere from South Dakota, you have to connect. That does create a lot of problems. So, it is an issue that a lot of people that I represent deal with. There is a lot of frustration out there.
As someone who travels frequently, I can personally attest to a lot of the issues that come up.
I have a question. This maybe is a simplistic question, but who decides on the schedules at the airport? Obviously, the airlines schedule, but do the airports say ''You can't have more flights coming in and out of here?''
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. GARVEY. Since deregulation the market is the determining factor. The airlines submit a flight plan to us. As was mentioned earlier, it is sort of first come first served on any given day. Deregulation allows the airlines to set the schedules. The market really is the driver.
Mr. THUNE. But if you get to a point where capacity-wise you can't take any more, I mean, does the air traffic control system, the FAA say—
Ms. GARVEY. What really happens, Congressman, is that that often is why we have such long delays. If there are too many at a given hour then we really have to hold them in a queue, if you will. Often keeping them on the ground is because we have to wait until we can get them safely out of there.
The only places, as you may remember, where we really stepped in, and again it was in collaboration with the port authority, was at LaGuardia Airport last summer. The numbers went up so high that we felt we really had to take some steps and implemented a lottery for some of those additional slots, if you will.
Mr. THUNE. One of the questions that I asked the last time that you were in front of this committee was the communication between air traffic control and the individual airlines. I guess my question would be: Has that improved? Have there been any steps taken there?
In my experience at least, what happens generally is air traffic control blames the airline, the airline blames air traffic control and the customer doesn't believe them.
Part of what I think you addressed the last time I posed that question is, you know, efforts to improve communication. Has that improved?
Ms. GARVEY. Congressman, you are absolutely right. The issue of communication is critical. I think we have made some great progress in that area. We are continuing with those conference calls that occur every day, led by the people in Herndon. They start at 5:00 in the morning. The airlines and the weather people all get on a conference call. They continue throughout the day, every two hours, particularly in the bad weather days. All the airlines are a part of that. Particularly on that bad weather days, we establish a strategic plan for the day. How are we going to respond? What are we going to do? We use common weather information, which is relatively new for both us and the airlines.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There is always room for improvement, but I think we have made tremendous progress in that area. We have learned a lot from last summer's experience as well.
Mr. THUNE. It seems like a lot of the issues and a lot of the problems are communications oriented. I guess everything is on line these days. You can order your tickets on line. There is hardly anything that you can't do on line. The more seamless this process becomes, the fewer breakdowns there are.
I can give you an example. Delays that occurred, I mean I remember sitting at the airport and being told that the plane that we were supposed to depart on wasn't going to be coming in for another couple of hours because the plane we were going to leave for Sioux Falls on had been sent to Winnipeg.
Then the question that was raised was when that plane got in, whether the crew would have enough time because their hours of service had expired, whether or not they would be able to fly to Sioux Falls. This was getting around the 11 o'clock or midnight hour. So, do you sit around the airport only to find out that the crew doesn't have enough hours?
It seems to me a very simple thing would be to talk to the crew and find out. I mean just communication that way. I know that is not your issue. That is an airline issue. But the point I am making is that a lot of these issues are very definitely communication.
One last question has to do with how much of air traffic control I mean my understanding is that our system is somewhat antiquated and that we need to take some steps to modernize it that would incorporate GPS technology, satellite technology. How much of that is being done today?
Ms. GARVEY. That is a great question. We are working very hard on that. Clearly, the long-term solution is satellite navigation, so we are working on WAAS and LAAS, which are satellite navigation systems that will be completed in the 2003 timetable.
I do want to just make one comment about the modernization because while I know it is often stated in the press that the air traffic control system is crumbling or referred to in a negative way, I want to stress again, as I know Congressman Oberstar has at many points, that we have been very aggressive, particularly in the last three years, to get that technology out there.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If you look at the 20 centers, we have all new hardware in those centers. Now, we are focusing on the terminals. There is a lot going on. I don't want to overstate it or suggest that we are there. You are never completed with modernization, but we are aggressively pursuing it. We lost some time in the 1980s, as people have pointed out, but we are aggressively pursuing technology and getting it out as soon as we can.
Mr. THUNE. Thank you, Ms. Garvey.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. MICA. Thank you.
Mr. Lipinski.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to compliment the Administrator once again on her benchmark report and on her testimony here today.
I only have one question and that pertains to the situation at O'Hare airport in regards to the fact that on good weather days O'Hare operates at three and a half hours at or above capacity. That is not necessarily a bad thing, is it?
Ms. GARVEY. It is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I think what is remarkable at O'Hare is how well the system does work on a good day. Those are incredibly professional controllers and it is a credit to the airlines as well that it does work that well. So, it is not always a negative.
Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MICA. Thank you. We appreciate your staying with us this long and responding to direct questions from Members. We have additional questions, which I think, Mrs. Kelly and others would like to submit.
Without objection, and with agreement of the Minority, we will leave the record open for a period of two weeks. We will submit those questions and if you would, respond please.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Also, if you have any areas in the action plan that you talked about today, I think everything could be done within existing law, AIR-21, or FAA rules. Is that correct?
Ms. GARVEY. Well, I think the only caveat I would put in is that we are looking at the anti-trust proposal from Congress, because that may make some of these issues much easier.
Mr. MICA. I do have a request, also, to have your official position and review of the proposed legislation.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you. We will do that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MICA. Good. Well, with that, there being no further questions today, again we want to thank you for your cooperation and again expediting the production of this report. We look forward to working with you. It is a very complex number of issues that we have before us. We will work with you on resolving them.
Thank you.
Ms. GARVEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and thank you Members of the committee and staff.
Mr. MICA. Let me now recognize our second panel. The second panel consists of the President of the Airports Council International, North America, David Plavin; the Vice President of Air Traffic Management of the Air Transport Association, Mr. Jack Ryan; we also have the Honorable and former Member of the House, James Coyne, who is President of the National Air Transportation Association, and Mr. Thomas J. Kinton who is the Director of Aviation of the Massachusetts Port Authority.
I want to welcome our panelists. We would like you to submit a lengthy statement or any additional information you would like to be made part of the record through the Chair. We will take it part of today's hearing proceedings. If you could summarize your remarks to approximately five minutes, and we will be running the little clock there. We appreciate your cooperation and we will have an opportunity for an exchange afterwards.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF DAVID Z. PLAVIN, PRESIDENT, AIRPORTS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL- NORTH AMERICA AND ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVES; JACK R. RYAN, ACTING SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, AVIATION SAFETY AND OPERATIONS, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; HON. JAMES K. COYNE, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL AIR TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; AND THOMAS J. KINTON, DIRECTOR OF AVIATION, MASSACHUSETTS PORT AUTHORITY.
Mr. MICA. With that, let me first recognize Mr. David Plavin who is with the Airport Council International-North America. Welcome. You are recognized.
Mr. PLAVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here today not only on behalf of ACI, but also on behalf of AAAE, the American Association of Airport Executives.
I am sorry Mr. Duncan has left because I wanted to take the opportunity to thank him and Mr. Lipinski and the entire committee for a great piece of legislation that came through the last session. Of course, Mr. Shuster and Mr. Oberstar were key to making that happen.
It makes a lot of our discussion today possible because in providing the money for many of the airport improvements, it kind of raises the question about okay, how well are we going to do in spending it and how well are we going to do in accomplishing what the money was proposed to do.
So, I will indeed summarize my remarks, a process which is also made easier by the opening that you made, Mr. Chairman, and the comments by Mr. Lipinski and Mr. Oberstar because I would very much like to subscribe to those comments. I think they are right on target and I think they make the point very well.
If I had a reservation about it, I guess it would be in the way in which we use anti-trust immunity, but let me come back to that.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The question about capacity benchmarks is one that airports have been wrestling with for a long time. We have gotten to the point where we have known that there are limitations in the way the airports function and regardless of whether it is for weather or scheduling or infrastructure problems, I think the wonderful service that the production of the capacity benchmarks serves is to give airports the opportunity to plan for the future, to get in place the kinds of plans that they need to have in order to improve the quality of the operations at their facilities.
The one thing that comes through as I read the report and I would like to read it in more detail, but the one that I think stands out is the fact that the runways will make such a significant contribution if we can get them done.
If you pick the top 25 airports in the country that account for 96 percent of all the delays in the system and you built a runway at every one of them, we are really talking of about 50 miles of runway, 25 runways, we are really not talking about that big an effort from a financial point of view, which raises the question about what does it take to build those runways. What does it take to actually accomplish that?
From our point of view, that is one of the reasons why ACI and AAAE have undertaken what we have come to call our EASE proposal, the Expedited Aviation System Enhancement proposal. That is one of those examples where the acronym comes before the words that put it together.
But it does make the point that we think that we can significantly improve the quality of the project approval process and the permitting process and the environmental review process without doing damage to the underlying need to protect the environment.
We have focused, as you know from reading the proposals, on the question of applying resources and applying an approach to making these projects able to be prosecuted in a much more rapid fashion and to do it without interfering with the underlying environmental considerations.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We need to, in the process though, create an opportunity for the airports to play the role that they need to play in figuring out how their community can be best served.
Our view has been that that means we need to get involved in the ways in which we build runways, the times over which we build runways, but equally in the economic operation of the airports. That is why we have some concerns about how the notion of limited anti-trust immunity would be implemented.
Our view is that there are many places that in real time that can be especially helpful. If a hub or a complex airport situation is deteriorating on a given day because of bad weather, it is a great opportunity to say to the airlines that are operating at that airport, why don't you get together and figure out together how to solve this on behalf of the passengers that operate that.
I have a real concern however, that the notion of the airlines sitting down to agree among themselves as to how they will solve the problem of ''over-scheduling'' or over capacity at a given airport is something that we have worked with over a period of time with less than great success.
My own experience with scheduling committees, for example, is that they tend to enshrine the status quo. They tend to in fact operate in a way that doesn't welcome new entrants very readily, that doesn't provide for airport service to small communities and in fact have no incentive at that point to build the additional capacity that the system really needs. And there is no incentive to use the additional capacity that already exists in the secondary airports around major metropolitan areas.
So, from our point of view, we think that the real importance of the benchmarks is to make the point that we really think we need to build more runways. We need to build them faster. We need to build them more effectively. I think that is the real service that the benchmarking study has done.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We very much want to work with the committee to help us see if we can improve that process even further.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MICA. Thank you for your testimony.
Let me recognize now Jack Ryan who is the Vice President of Air Traffic Management for the Air Transport Association.
Mr. RYAN. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lipinski, and Members of the Committee. I want to thank you on behalf of the Air Transport Association and our member airlines for this opportunity to provide our views on FAA's capacity benchmarks.
During his testimony on March 15 before the House subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations, DOT Inspector General Ken Mead said ''Capacity benchmarks were being established by FAA in order to encourage airlines to reschedule flights that are chronically delayed or canceled.''
But he acknowledged that the cause of these delayed and canceled flights was unclear at this time. Airlines clearly understand what causes the majority of delays in the national air space system and so does the FAA. Most delays are caused by the effects of en route convective thunderstorm weather causing massive re-routing of traffic and ensuing delays and metering traffic around the effected areas.
This is a scenario that must be dealt with almost every day in the spring and summer. That is why the airlines, the FAA, and the controllers' union spent the last seven months reviewing, revising and implementing the strategic planning process that guides the FAA's collaborative decisions on managing the severe weather process.
Over 3,100 FAA and airline personnel were briefed on the strategic planning process for this summer. Let me put the issues of delays caused by airline scheduling in perspective. Even by the most liberal interpretation of FAA's OPSNET delay reporting system, only 11 percent of all delays in the system last year were attributed to airline scheduling under FAA's category called ''terminal volume.''
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Mead on March 15 also said, and I quote, ''A set of capacity benchmarks is essential in understanding the impact of air carrier scheduling practices.''
Unfortunately, the FAA's benchmarks, as we understand them, do not help us to understand the impact of airline scheduling. A benchmark is supposed to be a point of reference from which measurements may be made. The FAA's benchmarks, as we understand them, juxtapose the airline schedule on the capacity marks, nothing else, no impacts and no measurements.
It is wrong to simply suppose that any time a scheduling peak is observed above the capacity benchmark that the airlines involved are in some sort of scheduling abuse. In order to assess the impact of a schedule, one must at least know the delay caused by that schedule.
What is missing from the FAA's effort is an analysis of the resultant delay caused by scheduling, if any. After all, some delay is accepted in all modes of transportation as a result of accommodating demand when people are free to select the time when they intend to travel.
ATA asked the consulting firm of Landrum and Brown to conduct a study to determine the delay created by scheduling alone at the Atlanta airport before and after a recent scheduling change. Delta Airlines implemented a scheduling change in Atlanta on April first to improve on-time performance and enhance customer service. The graphic is before you in my testimony.
As you can see from the graphic, the waiting times have been substantially reduced, especially in the 2000 hour where the wait time was 21 minutes and it has been reduced to six or seven. Delta Airlines is not the only carrier to have made adjustments to its schedule to deal with delay issues. Continental, American and United Airlines all have adjusted their schedules to reduce delay.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For example, the delays at Newark are down 20 percent from last year in this first quarter. This is absolutely a positive trend. Capacity figures at airports are not new to the FAA or to the airlines. The FAA has been using them for 30 years at the major airports to allocate demand when traffic management ground delay programs are instituted because of weather-induc